| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-19 22:30:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1361313052.97060.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> I was wondering if material views should not go into
> information_schema. I was thinking either .views or .tables.
> Have you considered this?
I had not considered this to be a good idea because
information_schema is defined by the standard, and materialized
views are an extension to the standard. Someone using these views
to identify either tables or views might make a bad choice based on
this. I'm open to arguments for inclusion, if you think it would
not violate the standard. Which would be safe?
> Also, some documentation typos: please see attached.
Will apply. Thanks.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-19 22:38:24 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-02-19 22:22:26 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-02-19 22:31:17 | Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-02-19 22:22:26 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |